Vol Navy
-
Posts
1,164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Vol Navy
-
-
It was Sparta's admitted plotting against their allies in tC that soured me on them. Rather than leave the bloc like Gremlins and FOK they chose to stay and violoate the treaty for several months.
Sparta is one of a few alliances that rode with Pacifica and tC that got off scott free as they've seemingly always managed to have a foot on every side of the treaty web and never minded getting out of town without their partners when they saw the posse on the way. -
[quote name='shahenshah' date='15 June 2010 - 06:16 AM' timestamp='1276578973' post='2337963']
But can you imagine all the 'rise of ebil TPF' ragelolz?
[/quote]
Those were the days.....
In all seriousness, we have already picked up quite a few active new members. Some of these many recruits will of course decide that either TPF or even Bob aren't for them, but I think we are going to end up with a goodly number of quality new members. -
[quote name='wickedj' date='15 June 2010 - 05:20 AM' timestamp='1276575606' post='2337914']
You realize just because it says 50% that there arent other deciding factors in spy ops..i.e. tech and land
[/quote]
Your odds, from my understanding, are calculated based on number of spies, threat level, tech, and land area when defending.
But none of that is my point, in order to destroy a billion dollars in 50 days you'd have to succeed at a 100% clip on all spy ops and all would have to be ops to destroy money.
With 100k+ nations who have 10k tech, I can't see that kind of success rate by the people running the ops and most ops I've ever been targeted with during war were to try and change my defcon, followed by destroy weapons of mass destruction. As a matter of fact, I've fought in quite a few wars now and have never been spied upon for the purpose of destroying money, nor have I ever used a spy op for that purpose.
So I don't think destroying money via spy ops is a massive concern in regards to war chest amounts for a defending nation. -
[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='14 June 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1276514589' post='2337089']
It's worth noting that since the Karma War, spy ops have been changed so that they can destroy 10 times as much money as before. Over 50 days of war you could lose up to a billion dollars to spies, which is pretty considerable.
[/quote]
That's technically possible but very unrealistic. That would be every spy attack against a nation for 50 days succeeding, and all being directed against money reserves, and destroying the maximum possible money every time.
I know that (for some reason I can't fathom) the nation who was spied didn't have a CIA, but I figure most nations do at that size. But even still with 800 spies it's hard to get more than 50% against a nation with 550 if they are in severe threat. I don't recall ever getting more than 50% personally with my 800 vs their 550 when they were in severe, even when I had around 1000 more tech than my opponent.
That makes it very very hard to destroy that much money via spy ops during war. -
[quote name='flak attack' date='14 June 2010 - 01:20 AM' timestamp='1276474786' post='2336513']
In a nuclear war, it depends more on tech than infra, really. It could probably get him through a month if he spent efficiantly, though he wouldn't have much to rebuild with.
[/quote]
2 billion should be plenty unless the war lasts months and months. I started Karma at about 100,000 NS, 12,000+ infra,6600 tech. I fought all out every day for all but about 2 weeks when I was finally able to get to PM after 48 days of war, all of it at least 1 vs 3 with a 1 vs 5 first round. I was nuked, GA's,bombed etc the max amount possible every single day until about the last 5 days of the last cycle before I was able to get to PM. I also rebought and nuked, spied, air and ground attacked all my opponents every day including rebuying quite a bit of infra to stay at 1000. I had to collect 2 times in Nuke anarchy, which was of course basically nothing.
After all that I still spent only about 700 million during all of the time I fought in Karma, I don't remember exactly be it was well over 60 days, probably closer to 80. That includes fighing several more 1 vs 3 rounds after leaving PM.
With the right trades you can get back from 0 to 12,000 infra for 1.2 billion dollars. So you might not be able to get back to 20k infra and 140k NS, but you should be able to get back to being a pretty sizeable nation (80k+) after only 30 days of war with the tech level someone starting with 11,000+ tech should have left at the end of 30 days. -
[quote name='Duckz3' date='12 June 2010 - 02:16 AM' timestamp='1276305353' post='2334154']
I wouldnt be bragging about this. You have 400K Causalities. Any true War fighter only has 3 things to be proud of.
Land
Tech
Causalities
So basically your proving UPN is bad...
[/quote]
Strike the first two. Raiders might have the land, and anyone can buy loads of tech.
Only casualties show if you've really been fighting actual wars. As a matter of fact, if you've been in any prolonged war/nuke fests you are less likely to have a ton of land and tech. -
[quote name='TECUMSEH' date='11 June 2010 - 10:23 PM' timestamp='1276291404' post='2333754']
Right. I had it estimated at closer to $2.5B for a month of full-on war. Ain't no thing. I'd take ANY wager you want to make.
Edit - Grammar
[/quote]
It won't cost anything close to that for a 30 day war. 2.5 billion is over 80 million dollars a day. I fought for 60+ days, 1 v 3, was nuked 44 times, rebought troops, infra, air force etc during Karma and it cost around 700 million dollars total for the entire war.
Once the infra is gone the bills are next to nothing. You can rebuy from 0 infra to 1000 for 3 million bucks. 4 million for a couple of nukes a day. 5 million per day on air force if you rebuy 100 planes every day. Naval costs are high but you won't be able to rebuy once the infra is gone, so that goes away.
Any way you shake it, it's not going to continually cost more than 80 million per day. -
Happy birthday to us! I wasn't here at the very beginning, I was a Bang fold in and suddenly I look up and I' ve been here at TPF for almost 1000 days. Time has certainly flown.
Well onward and upwards during the rule of The Crimson King. Maybe we'll topple that tower for him. -
Wow.....the hypocrisy is amazingly thick in here from MK. Just last month me and many others were told by these same MK'ers and other CnGers that we were totally foolish to suggest that we were in any way at war with Athens during Karma despite their attack on our MDAP parter, NPO.
Now they are using the same argument that they spent a week calling foolish to say NATO attacked Aqua. -
[quote name='Oktavia' date='05 February 2010 - 08:30 AM' timestamp='1265355008' post='2161127']
I don't get why TPF would defend any of its allies that didn't do jack for 6 days.
[/quote]
NEW and FEAR are our brothers. They have always been there for us, we will do our best to be there for them.
Here's to the good fight Immortals. To my esteemed opponent, the green glow arrives in around 15.5 hours.
May the pixels burn and the casualties rise! -
[quote name='BDRocks' date='03 February 2010 - 08:06 AM' timestamp='1265180798' post='2155930']
You do realize NpO initiated a war against VE allies?
[/quote]
I realize that MK is directly tied via MDoAP to Polaris and not directly tied to VE, or GOD. VE attacked Polaris and with the way these treaties usually roll, MK should be obligated to defend Polaris just as STA was obligated to defend MK.
This is what, the second time in a week that MK hasn't defended Polaris when they were attacked by someone not allied directly to MK.
Lots of name calling the last few wars when this type of defense wasn't immediate. -
I don't know that they will, but Polaris is facing a much darker road than MK, what if they request STA's assistance? Will you be fighting on both sides of the war? What if Polaris asks for MK's assistance? Will MK be joining the fight vs say, VE?
-
[quote name='Tolkien' date='02 February 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1265096086' post='2152751']
You are being deliberately dense. Bluntly speaking, C&G is an MADP bloc, and as a result, supercedes any and all optional clauses in treaties, if need be. In this case, we had more then our share of treaty ties to both sides of the conflict, and it was pretty clear that it was going to escalate into a SF vs. Polar war, something which we empathically did not want, especially with the way internal treaties within CnG worked out. You are being deliberately obtuse when you lambast us for not activating an oA clause (because, Polar did attack \m/, whether we agreed with it or not), when it would've put us right smack dab in the middle of our allies' while they were trading fire. Certainly we could've declared on \m/, if that's what you mean. We could not, however, declare war on Poison Clan (they are tied to Athens). We could not attack FOK! or Stickmen, nor could we attack the supermajority of the alliances arrayed against Polar at the time, simply due to direct treaties (or secondary treaties). Our best option was to attempt to reconcile both sides, and hope the hubub died down before it escalated uncontrollably.
Tell me, when during Karma did any alliance preemptively declare war on a (at the time) neutral party? The last time I recall seeing a move of that nature was during the NoCB war, when Q preempted the entirety of BLEU. The similarity is striking, and the move is nonetheless as disgusting as it was then.
Now I ask: who are you and what business do you have with MK/GR-Polar relations? Does The Phoenix Federation have any direct ties with either parties, or have any vested interest or inside knowledge as to our relations, beyond what is posted in this mudslinging propaganda mill of a forum?
[/quote]
I merely point out the hypocrisy of many CnG members, especially MK. They immediately went into full blown trash NpO mode over their attack on the ally, of an ally, of an ally. Yet didn't really have anything to say to FOK, who attacked Polaris, their direct ally, via oA.
As for the last part of your statement..What I post has nothing to do with TPF's point of view on this, I am merely a grunt and not govt. And my business in this is the exact same as any other poster on here, this is a global conflict and my nation will most likely be affected. You can also throw in the fact that CnG members and \m/ very recently used a very sketchy CB to attack us without even attempting any diplomacy just to get what we have now, TOP/IRON at war. -
[quote name='Tick1' date='02 February 2010 - 08:00 AM' timestamp='1265094004' post='2152636']
Death, NpO chose to declare on \m/ which put MK/GR in a difficult position you knew this. Yet you did it without thinking of things to later come into play. Whether or not you disapprove of TOP's actions doesn't mean you couldn't have prevented it from happening. (By not declaring war on \m/) You are also fighting to defend the allies which came to NpO's aid which also would have not been put in harms way had you not declared on \m/. I rest my case.
OOC: Have a good night
[/quote]
I am curious, how did it put MK/GR in that bad a position? They were in no way tied to \m/ and were in fact 2 or 3 degrees removed from them via the web. Though MK and others in CnG certainly trashed Polaris endlessly for doing so. Yet a direct ally of MK attacked Polaris via an oA clause and were hailed very vocally by many in CnG who were complaining about Polaris.
And there is also the fact that everyone and their brother with half a brain knows that CnG and company have been angling to get TOP/IRON at war. Now they get all huffy because they pull out a chapter from the Karma coalition playbook and declare war for the cause without a direct treaty. Something also hailed by many people who trashed TOP/IRON for doing it in this case. -
Extremely funny thread.
MK members certainly ginned up a ton of either outrage, or as this whole thing turned out, probably faux outrage over Polaris attacking the ally, of an ally, of an ally yet generally have no problem for the most part over STA pretty much telling TOP to roll Athens, a direct MADP partner of MK.
Oh well, either way the world burns and the former Karma coalition paints a clearer and clearer picture of the world they actually intended rather than the flowery prose from Archon at the start of that war. -
People are attacking Polar in DEFENCE of their allies
Nope, FOK and Stickmen entered via optional aggression. Not in defense.
-
Wait... so they should be happy to defend Polar in an aggressive war they started? Not only an aggressive war they started, but one against an ally's ally. Something putting them in a situation they didn't agree with? I'm trying to follow your logic here.
They should either drop their treaty with Polar or defend them from the aggressive attacks that Polar is getting at this point.
Once again, they are more offended by actions taken against the ally of an ally of an ally than by the actions taken by against a direct ally, one that frankly, I figured they were extremely close to.
-
MK had nothing to do with this treaty. In terms of Vanguard signing with people who attacked Polaris, they had a MDoAP with SLCB prior to this, and could have used it regardless if they were so inclined.
I may be mistaken about the nature of CnG then. I thought it was a MDAP bloc. If so, Vanguard wars, MK wars. So this treaty has a big impact on MK and a lot to do with them since they seem to be leaning in this direction of the war rather than the Polaris/STA direction. I would be stunned if Archon wasn't at the very least closely consulted about this treaty.
-
I am honestly curious, is this a way to somehow make sure MK doesn't have to defend Polar as they probably should be doing at this point? Since they have the MDoAP with them and Polar has been aggressively attacked by several alliances in the past 2 days, among whom the people who Vanguard signed this treaty with.
I know MK holds a MDoAP with FOK as well as Polaris, but FOK did enter via oA in this case. MK/CNG members seemed quite outraged that Polaris would attack the ally of an ally of an ally yet aren't having a big issue with FOK, a direct ally, attacking Polar a direct ally. It would seem that MK is closer on the treaty web to Polar than iFOK/Stickmen at the very least, since they don't have a direct tie with them that I could find.
This also puts STA, another direct MK/Vanguard ally, in a very very tight spot as I'll be stunned if STA doesn't roll in support of Polar.
Oh well, fun times in the post Karma world as what appeared to be brothers fight brothers.
-
Do you really think so? I think we've got a good shot at this! Just like you thought you had a good shot during the Karma war. Hmm well I guess that statement doesn't help me at all! Oh well at least I'm having fun curb-stomping some lowly players
Nope, we knew the Karma war was hopeless from the kickoff. I was basically ZI'ed multiple times during it. MK has a damn fine war machine and infra reduction program.
-
when will TPF just learn its lesson and die already. you're basically halfway in the grave as is. for all that is good, give it up. go out with whatever dignity you have left.
No thanks. Can't really stomp us out.
-
I'm pretty sure you could explain to us what its like to be on the end of a curbstomp now could you. Please emphasize on the feeling you get just before you lose.
I could explain it yes, but you are about to find out for yourself. So I'll let you have the fun of a new experience.
-
Interesting to see PC finally fight in a non-curbstomp, non-2 or 3 vs 1 tech raid situation. I believe this is their first taste of this type of war fare. We will see how long they actually are willing to fight in this situation. Last time they were faced with it they pre-emptively surrendered.
They do appear to have improved their tactics since the Karma war when they overdeployed vs us and many of them ended up having to hit PM after one round of war. When that happened we mostly had to fight MK, and others for the rest of the conflict.
-
I personally have no issues with our allies at this point and am proud to be allied to them.
Escape Goat DoW
in TE OWF Archive
Posted
With
from me to you.
[quote]
To: Cunctator From: Vol Navy Date: 6/27/2010 12:04:42 AM
Subject: Defeat Alert
Message: Your nation has been defeated in battle. You do not have enough troops to defend your nation and your government has been thrown into Anarchy. You have lost all of your tanks, 0 spies, 40.27 infrastructure has been destroyed, 0.77 technology was lost and $11,449.03 of your money reserves was destroyed due to the invasion and resulting riots. What troops you did have deployed have also been returned home.
[/quote]